Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10) without traverse in the reply filed on 08 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-6 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are under examination and the requirement for restriction is made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre -AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claims are directed to contingent clauses in claim language. Under MPEP § 2111.04, a proper limitation constitutes an open or closed language, often defined by the phrase “comprising” or “consisting of”. Applicant is advised to amend the claims by replacing “wherein” clauses with proper transitional language to secure proper claim scope.
Claim 10 is indefinite because the claim merely recites a use without any active, positive
steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. See MPEP 2173.05(q)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 10 is essentially a “use” claim, as it states “applications” and refers to using plasmonic material. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “use” claim does not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Sun et al. “Dual-Plasmonic Gold@Copper Sulfide Core-Shell Nanoparticles”.
With regard to claim 1, Sun et al. teaches a plasmonic material comprising a core-shell nanoparticles, wherein a nonstoichiometric Cu2–xS shell is present on the surfaces of Au nanoparticle cores (Abstract), thereby satisfying the claimed structural limitation.
With regard to claim 2, Sun et al. teaches a copper sulfides characterized by specifically targeted crystalline phases and defined Cu2–xS stoichiometries, such as covellite (CuS) (Abstract), thereby satisfying the claimed limitation for CuS.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. “Dual-Plasmonic Gold@Copper Sulfide Core-Shell Nanoparticles” in view Yu et al. “Synergistic Effect Induced High Photothermal Performance of Au Nanorod@Cu7S4 Yolk−Shell Nanooctahedron Particles”.
With regard to claim 3, although Sun et al. does not explicitly teach the shell thickness, it describes Au cores range from 20 to 200 nm and demonstrates that CuS shell thickness can be controlled by adjusting the Cu(NO3)2 relative to the Au seeds (page 3, column 1, Au@CuS Core–Shell NPs). Sun et al. further states that the CuS shell thickness exceeds the Bohr radius of CuS (<10 nm) (page 4, col. 2, Au@CuS Core–Shell NPs).
In the same field of endeavor, Yu et al. teaches an Au NR@Cu7S4 yolk−shell structured nanoparticles (YSNPs) to enhance photothermal conversion capabilities (Abstract). Yu et al. Table 1 teaches a comparable Au@Cu2-xS in a core-shell structure in photothermal conversion efficiency. Yu et al. further teaches that precisely tuning the shell thickness and interior void dimensions can optimize the metal-semiconductor interactions to maximize photothermal efficiency (page 2, col 1, para 2).
Furthermore, Yu et al. teaches synthesized Au NR@Cu7S4 NP samples exhibited an average Cu7S4 shell thickness of 8.8, 12.1, and 15.1 nm, which reads on the claimed range. Yu et al. teaches the Au NR@Cu7S4 NPs with the 8.8 nm shell thickness exhibited the highest photothermal conversion performance, characterized by a dominant absorption peak in 850 nm driven by the Au NR’s surface plasmon resonance. Yu et al. notes that as shell thickness increases, the electric field around Au core is significantly attenuated, indicating that the thicker Cu7S4 shell partially shields the Au NR’s surface plasmon resonance (page 5, paragraph 2).
With regard to the shell thickness, Yu et al. offers the motivation to optimize the shell thickness in the plasmonic material due to its ability to affect absorption change and photothermal efficiency (page 2, col 1, para 2). As such, the shell thickness will directly affect the performance of the plasmonic material. Therefore, the shell thickness can be optimized to reach the desired efficiency of the absorption via a routine optimization. The case law has held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to adjust the shell thickness in the plasmonic material of Sun et al. within the shell sizes of Yu et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 7-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. “Dual-Plasmonic Gold@Copper Sulfide Core-Shell Nanoparticles” in view of Yu et al. “Synergistic Effect Induced High Photothermal Performance of Au Nanorod@Cu7S4 Yolk−Shell Nanooctahedron Particles” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Wu (WO-2022217312-A1).
The teachings of Sun et al. and Yu et al. are disclosed above.
With regard to claim 7, Sun et al. teaches dual-plasmonic Au@CuS core–shell nanoparticles that exhibit multimodal photothermal and photocatalytic behaviors upon selective photoexcitation of distinct optical transitions (Abstract).
Sun et al. and Yu et al. do not teach the plasmonic material comprised in a solar absorber.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches a solar-driven apparatus comprising a solar absorber that utilizes photothermal material, specifically gold, nanorods, CuS, CuxSy (para [00050, Abstract]. Wu notes that these materials efficiently absorb sunlight, convert it into heat to evaporate water and leave contaminants behind (para [00048]).
With regard to the solar absorber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plasmonic material of Sun et al. within a solar absorber taught by Wu. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such application would yield predictable results, specifically as the references collectively utilize comparable plasmonic components (e.g. absorption, copper sulfide, and nanorod), thereby achieving the optimized solar absorption and photothermal conversion efficiency as established in Wu.
With regard to claim 8, Sun et al. and Yu et al. do not teach a solar absorber or a hydrogel.
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches a solar absorber comprising a photothermal material loaded on a porous material (para [00036]), wherein the porous material can be specifically a porous hydrogel (para [00045]). Wu notes that such hydrogel networks possesses the water retention, ion absorption, and soil aggregation capabilities of plant root systems in a chemically controllable manner (para [0006]).
With regard to the hydrogel, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the plasmonic material of Sun et al. with a hydrogel taught by Wu. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such combination would yield predictable results, specifically as the references collectively teach plasmonic material with comparable components (e.g. absorption, copper sulfide, and nanorod), thereby achieving the optimized functionality from the hydrogel (e.g. water retention) as established in Wu.
With regard to claim 10, Sun et al. and Yu et al. do not explicitly teach the application in seawater desalination. However, Sun et al. teaches that synthesized Au@CuS core–shell nanoparticles can maintain structural and compositional stability for several months when stored as colloidal suspensions in water under ambient conditions (Au@CuS Core–Shell NPs).
In the same field of endeavor, Wu teaches that the absorbent material is a solar driven, in-situ remediation apparatus used to remove Pb2+, PFOS, and/or PFOA. Wu further teaches the system generates heat under solar irradiation to accelerate evaporation of the aqueous fluid while retaining contaminants (para [00012]), thereby addressing soil salination and its detrimental impacts on agricultural productivity and plant diversity (para [0003]). Wu does not explicitly teach seawater application.
With regard to the seawater application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to integrate the plasmonic material of Sun et al. within a solar absorber taught by Wu and place within seawater. The person having ordinary skill in the art would expect such application would yield predictable results, specifically as the references collectively teach plasmonic material comprising comparable components (e.g. absorption, copper sulfide, and nanorod), thereby achieving the optimized photothermal functionality and agricultural/environmental benefits as established in Wu in any forms of water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aja A Walker whose telephone number is (571)272-0037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.A.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights